X-Men 3

He was certainly more interesting than all of the new villains (minus Juggernaut) combined.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Kurado

He was certainly more interesting than all of the new villains (minus Juggernaut) combined.

I don't see how he could be considered interesting given that he has all of, what, 2 scenes and 4 lines?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Kurado

He was certainly more interesting than all of the new villains (minus Juggernaut) combined.

He was certainly less realistic than all of the other mutants. Combined. I know the comics aren't as realistic as the movie, but I myself am not a fan of the comics (haven't ever read them, so I'm neutral). The jump from a single gene causing extreme mutations to the ability to create clones of yourself instantly is a little large in my eyes. All in all, I have to ask why they chose to include that mutant.

Most amazing jew boots

I'm still wondering why the hell did they make Psylocke a villain? Why did they even include her in the movie at all? It's really weird a character that appeared at the beggining in the church, with main brotherhood ones like Callisto and Arclight suddenly dissappeared during the rest of the film until the end, in one of the latest scenes, the lab one. Don't you think?

The problem is they never established to be an important character. They never established her connections with Magneto's cause......or even with Callisto, Quill, and Arclight.....

So her presence makes no sense. It seems they cut out the meat of her character's screentime. Why not cut the character out completely?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by leo

Multiple Man should have his own movie where you see the amount of trouble him and himselves get into.If I remember correctly he sent plenty of himselves over to the East to learn different martial art styles so he could merge back with them to be an instant martial arts master.

Didn't they make a movie like this already?

Multiplicity ? Starring Michael Keaton?

Sure it didn't star multiple man himself.. but the concept was intact

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by KCJ506

I've noticed a lot of people complaining about X3 not following the comics when there are movies that didn't follow the comics storylines and a lot of people still liked them. It's okay for the Joker to kill Bruce Wayne's parents or Superman to build his Fortress by throwing a crystal into some snow, but when a modern movie deviates we get relentless complaining.

Because by having Joker kill Bruce Wayne's parents, neither character is essentially changed, and the story can go forward without needless explanation. Comics aren't movies; they have less time to introduce and set the basis for a story that will conclude in an hour and a half to two hours. Superman building the Fortress of Solitude with a crystal doesn't change anything about how Superman/Clark Kent behaves as a character nor does it change his interactions with the world. These are alright things to change. Minor storyline changes that in effect don't alter the core essentials.

However, when you kill off not only the leader of the X-Men early in the movie in a back-handed, non-meaningful way, that does change the way the X-Men operate. Not only that, but you kill off the originator of the X-Men, and the person from where they get their morals...those things are changes that do affect the X-Men as a whole, and not in a good way.

Other examples: Having the Kingpin as a black man instead of a white man didn't change the character for me. He was still the Kingpin. However having him brawl with Daredevil in a pointless fight at the end of the movie did change the character for me. He was no longer the crime-lord mob-boss who used others to do his dirty work; instead he was tough-guy thug thrown in for a useless scene. And that was only one of the many failings of Daredevil. I'm with LeHah on this one: I would much rather see Hulk sequals than Daredevil sequals especially if they followed the same formula as the movies that started them.

How about Doom? Changing him to a character that got "powers" the same way as the rest of the Fantastic 4 really detracted from the character as a whole, turning one of the best villains of all time into a two-bit hack character. Doom's major claim to faim was his intellect, and that he created everything he had himself to be able to combat the Fantastic 4 even with their powers. Instead of trying to find a way to explain a background for him that would do him justice, they simply copped out and gave him "powers".

Quote:

This is driving me crazy how a lot of people are so pissed off about X-3 not following the comics, when X-2 didn't and X-1 didn't but they were great.. and Batman Begins OBVIOUSLY ignored everything that had to do with the comics and yet people love that movie so I'm confused on that part.

As I said, as long as the core of the character holds true, then the movie works. Batman Begins worked so well because of how they treated the characters in that movie, not only making Bruce "human" instead of the current "god" he is in the comics, but also making him believable. Part of Batman's charm is that he is human in the face of overwhelming odds, and yet he still finds the way to succeed. Batman is not a "Super"hero in that sense of the word. He's more like a MacGuyver, making do with what he's got. And he becomes a much better character for it.

There are parts in the first two movies I didn't like as well, like Rogue for the most part being poorly represented, but overall the characters were well done, not only having main characters (although Cyc's role should have definately been stronger), but side characters/cameos that were there for the fans. In the third movie, they stuck in the side characters at the expense of the main character's story, which detracted muchly from it, making the characters even weaker overall. The difference between Hulk/Spiderman/Batman/Superman and the X-Men is that the former are all single character driven stories. You only have one guy to really worry about. With the X-Men you have many people to balance out evenly, not only explaining all of them, but trying to create a story that makes them all useful. X-Men 3 fails in that respect, by not focusing on what makes the other movies strong. Sure, it's pretty to look at, but special effects does not a good movie make. Someday maybe Hollywood will realize that, and I'm just hoping beyond hope that they don't fumble with the Superman movie. The biggest Superhero Icon of all time deserves a worthy movie to his name, not another "Daredevil" inspired dreck.

Quote:

Why are people singling Ratner out for the changes in this movie? For example people are complaining that Juggernaut was a mutant in the movie when he wasn't in the comics: Why weren't there similar complaints about Deathstrike laid at Singer during X2 (she was a human who became a cyborg in efforts to kill wolverine because she wanted his adamantium which she DID NOT HAVE, and she didn't have a healing factor either)?

I do complain to my friends about the changes to Juggernaut. Me I'm of the opinion that they could have given him his real background, and made him CG like the Hulk to make him more like the true Juggernaut. Besides, Juggernaut is a somewhat more known, and liked, character than Lady Deathstrike is. Sure, it does't excuse the liberties they took with her character (I don't think they should have, at any rate), but the more prolific a character is, the more reason one has in getting it right.

I'm also of the opinion that they shouldn't have made Spidey's web-shooters organic. That changes the character. In the comics (the originals, not today's watered down garbage that Marvel is spewing out), Spidey is an intelligent inventor, a young Reed Richards (I can't remember who described him as such, but the description was there) who was known for outsmarting his opponents just as much as beating them hand-to-hand. By removing the web-shooters, they "dumbed down" the character, making for a simpler story, but also detracting from the character as a whole. On the flip side, giving Green Goblin an exoskeleton instead of a rubber mask doesn't change the character. He still has the Goblin Glider, Goblin Serum and the bombs; he's still just as crazy as in the comics. Some changes are good/liveable, others are not.

Quote:

So they didn't make references between Juggernaut and Xavier being stepbrothers, Singer ignored the fact that Wolverine and Sabertooth actually knew each other before Logan got involved with the X-Men, or the fact that Singer NEVER made any connection between Rogue and Mystique (who was a foster mother to Rogue in the comics) or even the fact that Mystique was Nightcrawler's mother in X2? Or the fact that Jean Grey was a doctor in the first X-Men, Bobby was not a child in training when Logan joined the X-Men (he was an original X-Man) and supposed to be from the South? Or that Mystique was never a flunkie for Magneto, and Striker wasn't a U.S Soldier, etc. I find that hypocritical.

Which is why I find the X-Men movies weaker overall than the Spidey movies. They are more flash than about the characters and the story. But even said, the first two movies are miles above what the third one was. The third one to me will probably fall into the same camp as Superman 3 and 4, Alien vs. Predator, Highlander 2 and 4: ie they don't exist.

Most amazing jew boots

I don't think X-Men 3 wanted to Follow the Comics Completely. That would Be boring. Making a New Story though would Be more Exhilirating. If people wanted a show to follow the Comics completely they should watch the TV Shows. Spiderman's Web In the movie came with the Package. It was built in. But in the comics and tv show, Parker had to build Cartridges. This is Just like that. If they were messing up the Story too much Stan Lee would've Come in and said "HEY, HEY!! YOU'RE FU&*#$G UP MY STORY!!"

Spoiler:

OMG I loved the ending, When Magneto moved the Chess Piece. This could mean that Magneto's power could never be stripped from him, or that The Cure doesnt really work. Meaning that we could see a return of Mystique and Rogue. (And a good time to mix up Ms. Marvel with Rogue). But again, Roque may not get her powers like that (If she does in fact get powers). Rogue may acquire her powers another way aside from Ms. Marvel. Its stan Lee's Story... Let him write it.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

1.) Stan Lee had nothing to do with Rogue
2.) Stand Lee had nothing to do with the writing of any of the movies
3.) I sincerely doubt they'll give Rogue the powers of Ms Marvel. It would be too much for the movie to remain believable.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Isn't the Wolverene Movie supposed to show some kind of link between him and Sabertooth?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by KCJ506

This is driving me crazy how a lot of people are so pissed off about X-3 not following the comics, when X-2 didn't and X-1 didn't but they were great.. and Batman Begins OBVIOUSLY ignored everything that had to do with the comics and yet people love that movie so I'm confused on that part.

(like a month late)

Go read Frank Miller's Batman: Year One.

They ignored far less than you think.

FELIPE NO

I´m not as educated as many of you in the whole storyline of the X-men or really any comic, partially because there´s just way too much out on it for me to start. But I did really like X3. I remember some years ago we were arguing here about how they butchered a lot of the elements of The Fellowship of the Ring (LOTR) and a lot of people were pissed. I guess it doesn´t bother me because I like what I do know about the comics and I like the movies and I don´t believe they necessarily have to be similar. Ha, most of my X-men education comes from the cartoon, actually. I wonder if it was accurate.

I do wish the first one had explained just a little about the history between Sabretooth and Wolverine. And aren´t Mystique and Sabretooth the parents of Nightcrawler? I think the whole explanation of Juggernaut´s gem, where I think he gets his powers, would´ve been too much for most audiences today. I think,if you try to enjoy the movie for what it is and not make comparisons, you´ll have an easier time enjoying it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by OctoberOmicron

I think,if you try to enjoy the movie for what it is and not make comparisons, you´ll have an easier time enjoying it.

Like Catwoman?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh

Like Catwoman?

Not so much like Catwoman. More like Dune.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by OctoberOmicron

I think,if you try to enjoy the movie for what it is and not make comparisons, you´ll have an easier time enjoying it.

I only compared it to the earlier installment, as I am not _that_ familiar with the comices. Unluckily, the second movie was just miles ahead of this one.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by OctoberOmicron

And aren´t Mystique and Sabretooth the parents of Nightcrawler?

Sabertooth and Mystique were the parents of Graydon Creed, a normal human who was anti-mutant. Mystique got banged by a demon-like mutant to get Nightcrawler.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Ah, okay. I thought it just made sense they´d be his parents, seeing as he´s blue like her and the fangs and other stuff from Sabertooth.

Jaroh, I guess I should´ve mentioned what I said didn´t apply to ALL movies, only the relevant ones. I don´t think it´d be possible to make a decent Catwoman movie anyway, I think characters like that are better off as costars. I think they did well enough in the second Batman.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Sabertooth and Mystique were the parents of Graydon Creed, a normal human who was anti-mutant. Mystique got banged by a demon-like mutant to get Nightcrawler.

However, what happened in the comics probably doesn't apply to the movies. They have a lovely habit of pick 'n choose

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yeah, I was just talking about how it was in the comics. I've never been one to give a shit about insignificant differences between the comics and the movies.

FELIPE NO

According to Wikipedia, the DVD release will contain 21 deleted scenes and three alternate endings. I guess we all know now, where the 20+ minutes of character development went, that could have made the movie a whole lot less bland. But then again, that's what we've come to expect from Fox.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Or, the deleted scenes could be as spectacularly crappy as the rest of the movie. There's really no way to say.

Jam it back in, in the dark.